Book contents
- Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- One Introduction to the Analysis of Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Two Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Three Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Four The Social Context of Pottery Production, Exchange and Consumption in the Northern Aegean
- Five Geometric Pottery Production and Consumption in the Balkan Hinterland
- Six The Aegean Connection of East Locris
- Seven Early Iron Age Klazomenai
- Eight The Earliest Greek Colonisation in Campania
- Nine Late Geometric and Orientalising Pottery from Sicilian Naxos in Its Context
- Ten Early Greek Pottery on the Coast of Málaga, Andalusia, Spain
- Eleven Consumption of Geometric and Archaic Greek Pottery in the Emporion of Huelva (Tartessos, South-Western Spain)
- Twelve Greek Geometric Ceramics from Phoenician Utica
- Thirteen The Greek Geometric Pottery from the Tunisian Excavations at Utica
- Fourteen Early Iron Age Greek Pottery at Sidon
- Fifteen The Role of Aegean Imports and Aegeanizing Wares in the Phoenician Cemetery of al-Bass, Tyre
- Sixteen Concluding Remarks on Early Greek Pottery Production, Exchange and Consumption Overseas
- Catalogue of the NAA Samples and Results
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Two - Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
Provenance Studies by Neutron Activation Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 May 2024
Edited by
Book contents
- Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- One Introduction to the Analysis of Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Two Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Three Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean World
- Four The Social Context of Pottery Production, Exchange and Consumption in the Northern Aegean
- Five Geometric Pottery Production and Consumption in the Balkan Hinterland
- Six The Aegean Connection of East Locris
- Seven Early Iron Age Klazomenai
- Eight The Earliest Greek Colonisation in Campania
- Nine Late Geometric and Orientalising Pottery from Sicilian Naxos in Its Context
- Ten Early Greek Pottery on the Coast of Málaga, Andalusia, Spain
- Eleven Consumption of Geometric and Archaic Greek Pottery in the Emporion of Huelva (Tartessos, South-Western Spain)
- Twelve Greek Geometric Ceramics from Phoenician Utica
- Thirteen The Greek Geometric Pottery from the Tunisian Excavations at Utica
- Fourteen Early Iron Age Greek Pottery at Sidon
- Fifteen The Role of Aegean Imports and Aegeanizing Wares in the Phoenician Cemetery of al-Bass, Tyre
- Sixteen Concluding Remarks on Early Greek Pottery Production, Exchange and Consumption Overseas
- Catalogue of the NAA Samples and Results
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
This paper presents results from the Neutron Activation Analysis of 362 samples of Protogeometric and Geometric pottery from the Aegean and the Mediterranean. The focus is on sampled pots whose origin can be located through good reference material such as clays or misfired pottery from kilns. These analysed samples were clustered in already defined geochemical groups, usually named after the first letters of their place of origin (e.g. EuA for Euboea, DelA for Delphi), or in new groups determined through this study (e.g. KlazE for Klazomenai, SinA for Sindos). The geochemical variability of the earliest Greek pottery overseas challenges previous perceptions about the alleged dominance of certain wares such as Euboean and Corinthian in early Greek and Phoenician colonial contexts.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Greek Iron Age Pottery in the Mediterranean WorldTracing Provenance and Socioeconomic Ties, pp. 14 - 50Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Aslan, C., Kealhofer, L., and Grave, P.. 2014. ‘The Early Iron Age at Troy Reconsidered’. OJA 33: 275–312.Google Scholar
Beier, T., and Mommsen, H.. 1994a. ‘Modified Mahalanobis Filters for Grouping Pottery by Chemical Composition’. Archaeometry 36: 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, T., and Mommsen, H.. 1994b. ‘A Method for Classifying Multidimensional Data with Respect to Uncertainties of Measurement and Its Application to Archaeometry’. Naturwissenschaften 81: 546–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bîrzescu, I. 2012. Die archaischen und frühklassischen Transportamphoren. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedicǎ.Google Scholar
Boardman, J. 1999. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Donnellan, L. 2017. ‘The “Euboean” Koine: Reassessing Patterns of Cross-Cultural Interaction and Exchange in the North-Western Aegean Region’. In Material Koinai in the Greek Early Iron Age and Archaic Period: Acts of an International Conference at the Danish Institute at Athens, 30 January – 1 February 2015, edited by Handberg, S. and Gadolou, A., 43–64. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press; Athens: The Danish Institute at Athens.Google Scholar
Dupont, P. 1998. ‘Archaic East Greek Trade Amphoras’. In East Greek Pottery, edited by Cook, R. M. and Dupont, P., 142–90. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forsen, J., Mommsen, H., and Shriner, C.. 2017. ‘Some Preliminary Remarks Concerning a Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) Study and a Fabric Correlation of Ceramic Samples from Asea in Arcadia, Greece’. In Σπείρα: Επιστημονική συνάντηση προς τιμήν της Αγγέλικας Ντούζουγλη και του Κωνσταντίνου Ζάχου, 91–108. Athens: TAPA.Google Scholar
Geißler, L. R., Mommsen, H., Posamentir, R., and Riehle, K.. 2022. ‘Ionians East and West: Differences according to the Pottery Evidence’. In Ionians in the East and West: Proceedings of an International Conference ‘Ionians in the East and West’, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya-Empúries, Empúries/L’Escala, Spain, 26–29 October, 2015, edited by Tsetshkladze, R., 235–74. Leuven: Peeters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, A., Shalev, A., Lehmann, G., et al. 2017. ‘Cretan Pottery in the Levant in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries b.c.e., American Journal of Archaeology 121: 559–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimatzidis, S. 2010. Die Stadt Sindos: Eine Siedlung von der späten Bronze- bis zur Klassischen Zeit am Thermaischen Golf in Makedonien. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.Google Scholar
Gimatzidis, S. 2011. ‘The Northwest Aegean in the Early Iron Age’. In The ‘Dark Ages’ Revisited: Acts of an International Symposium in Memory of William D.E. Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos, 14–17 June 2007, edited by Ainian, Α. Mazarakis, 957–70. Volos: University of Thessaly Press.Google Scholar
Gimatzidis, S. 2017a. ‘Πρώιμοι ελληνικοί εμπορικοί αμφορείς και οικονομία στο βόρειο Αιγαίο’. In Thasos: Métropole et colonies. Actes du symposion international à la mémoire de Marina Sgourou, Thasos, 21–22 septembre 2006, edited by Mulliez, D., 259–92. Paris: École française d’Athènes.Google Scholar
Gimatzidis, S. 2017b. ‘Cooking Pots and Ancient Identities: Indicators or Obscurers of Cultural Change’. In ΚΡΑΤΙΣΤΟΣ: Volume in Honour of Professor Peter Delev, edited by Popov, H. and Tzvetkova, J., 253–68. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo ‘Sv. Kliment Ochridski’.Google Scholar
Gimatzidis, S. 2020. ‘The Economy of Early Greek Colonisation in the Northern Aegean’. Journal of Greek Archaeology 5: 243–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimatzidis, S., Gates, M.-H., and Lehmann, G.. 2023. ‘Aegean and Aegeanising Geometric Pottery at Kinet Höyük: New Patterns of Greek Pottery Production, Exchange and Consumption in the Mediterranean’. AnatSt 73: 25–68.Google Scholar
Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Marsh, B., and Gates, M.-H.. 2008. ‘Using Neutron Activation Analysis to Identify Scales of Interaction at Kinet Höyük, Turkey’. JAS 35: 1974–92.Google Scholar
Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Hnila, P., et al. 2013. ‘Cultural Dynamics and Ceramic Resource Uuse at Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Troy, Northwestern Turkey’. JAS 40: 1760–77.Google Scholar
Harbottle, G. 1976. ‘Activation Analysis in Archaeology’. In Radiochemistry, Vol. 3, edited by Newton, G. W. A., 33–72. London: The Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Huy, S., Mommsen, H., and Dally, O.. 2020. ‘Herkunftsbestimmung von Keramik aus der Siedlung Taganrog am unteren Don durch Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse’. AA: 9–81.Google Scholar
Jones, R. E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. Athens: British School at Athens.Google Scholar
Jung, R., Mommsen, H., and Pacciarelli, M.. 2015. ‘From West to West: Determining Production Regions of Mycenaean Pottery of Punta Zambrone (Calabria, Italy)’. JAS: Reports 3: 455–63.Google Scholar
Jung, R., Guglielmino, R., Iacono, F., and Mommsen, H.. 2021. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean and Aegeanizing Ceramics from Roca Vecchia and the Circulation of Pottery in Southern Italy’. In Punta di Zambrone I. 1200 b.c.e.: A Time of Breakdown, a Time of Progress in Southern Italy and Greece, edited by Jung, R., 459–90. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadıoğlu, M., Özbil, C., Kerschner, M., and Mommsen, H.. 2015. ‘Teos im Licht der neuen Forschungen’. In Anatolien: Brücke der Kulturen Aktuelle Forschungen und Perspektiven in den deutsch-türkischen Altertumswissenschaften. Tagungsband des Internationalen Symposiums ‘Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen’ in Bonn vom 7. bis 9. Juli 2014, edited by Yalçın, Ü and Bienert, H.-D., 345–66. Bochum: Vereinigung der Freunde von Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau e.V.Google Scholar
Karageorghis, V., Asaro, F., and Perlman, I.. 1972. ‘Concerning Two Mycenaean Pictorial Sherds from Kouklia (Palaepaphos), Cyprus’. AA, 188–97.Google Scholar
Kearsley, R. A. 1995. ‘The Greek Geometric Wares from Al Mina Levels 10–8 and Associated Pottery’. MeditArch 8: 7–81.Google Scholar
Kerschner, M. 2002a. ‘Die lokalisierten chemischen Gruppen A, D und H und ihr Aussagewert für die Keramikproduktion von Milet und Ephesos’. In Töpferzentren der Ostägäis: Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien, edited by Akurgal, M., Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H., and Niemeier, W. D., 37–50. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological Institute.Google Scholar
Kerschner, M. 2002b. ‘Ostgriechische Kalottenschalen (Vogelkotylen, Vogel-, Rosetten, Mäander- und Reifenschalen) und Vogelkannen’. In Töpferzentren der Ostägäis: Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien, edited by Akurgal, M., Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H., and Niemeier, W. D., 63–72. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological Institute.Google Scholar
Kerschner, M., and Lemos, I. S.. 2014. ‘Production, Export and Imitation of Euboean Pottery: A Summary of the Results of the Workshop on the Provenance of Euboean Related Pottery and Perspectives for Future Research’. In Archaeometric Analyses of Euboean and Euboean Related Pottery: New Results and Their Interpretations. Proceedings of the Round Table Conference Held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens, 15 and 16 April 2011, edited by Kerschner, M. and Lemos, I. S., 191–99. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological Institute.Google Scholar
Kerschner, M., and Mommsen, H.. 2005. ‘Transportamphoren milesischen Typs in Ephesos: Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zum Handel im archaischen Ionien’. In Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, Vol. 1, edited by Brandt, B., Gassner, V., and Ladstätter, S., 119–30. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.Google Scholar
Kerschner, M., and Mommsen, H.. 2009a. ‘Neue archäologische und archäometrische Forschungen zu den Töpferzentren der Ostägäis’. In Les productions céramiques du Pont-Euxin à l’époque grecque: Actes du colloque international Bucarest, 18–23 septembre 2004, edited by Dupont, P. and Lungu, V., 79–93. Rome: Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon; Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.Google Scholar
Kerschner, M., and Mommsen, H.. 2009b. ‘Imports of East Greek Pottery to Sicily and Sicilian Productions of East Greek type: Archaeometric Analyses of Finds from the Votive Deposit in Katane’. In Stipe votiva del santuario di Demetra a Catania, 2: la ceramica greco-orientale, edited by Pautasso, A., Kerschner, M., and Mommsen, H., 125–50. Catania: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, I.B.A.M.Google Scholar
Kerschner, M., and Mommsen, H.. 2022. ‘Teos in the Geometric and Archaic Period, a Major Production Centre of Pottery in North Ionia’. In Ionians in the West and East: Proceedings of an International Conference ‘Ionians in the East and West’, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya-Empúries, Empúries/L’Escala, Spain, 26–29 October, 2015, edited by Tsetshkladze, R., 169–213. Leuven: Peeters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H., Beier, T., Heimermann, D., and Hein, A.. 1993. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Bird Bowls and Related Archaic Ceramics from Miletus’. Archaeometry 35: 197–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, I. S. 1998. ‘Euboea and Its Aegean Koine’. In Euboica: L’Eubea e le presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente. Atti del convegno internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 novembre 1996, Napoli, edited by Bats, M. & Agostino, B. D’, 45–58. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, I. S. 2014. ‘Pottery from Lefkandi of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in the Light of the Neutron Activation Analyses’. In Archaeometric Analyses of Euboean and Euboean Related Pottery: New Results and Their Interpretations. Proceedings of the Round Table Conference Held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens, 15 and 16 April 2011, edited by Kerschner, M. and Lemos, I. S., 37–58. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological Institute.Google Scholar
Matricardi, E., Jung, R., Mommsen, H., Pacciarelli, M., and Sterba, J. H.. 2021. ‘Aegean-Type and Aegeanizing Pottery from Ionian Apulia: New Studies and Provenance Analysis’. Origini 44: 111–148.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H. 2007. ‘Tonmasse und Keramik: Herkunftsbestimmung durch Spurenanalyse’. In Einführung in die Archäometrie, edited by Wagner, G., 179–92. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H. 2011. ‘Provenancing of Pottery’. In Nuclear Techniques for Cultural Heritage Research, 41–70. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H. 2014. ‘Provenancing by Neutron Activation Analyses and Results of Euboean and Euboean Related Pottery’. In Archaeometric Analyses of Euboean and Euboean Related Pottery: New Results and Their Interpretations. Proceedings of the Round Table Conference Held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens, 15 and 16 April 2011, edited by Kerschner, M. and Lemos, I. S., 13–36. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological Institute.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., and Japp, S.. 2009. ‘Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse von 161 Keramikproben aus Pergamon und Fundorten der Region’. IstMitt 59: 269–86.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., and Japp, S.. 2014. ‘Statistical Interpretation of Elemental Concentration Data and the Origin of Pergamene Pottery’. In Late Hellenistic to Mediaeval Fine Wares of the Aegean Coast of Anatolia: Their Production, Imitation and Use, edited by Meyza, H. and Domzalski, K., 31–40. Warsaw: Neriton.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H. and Kerschner, M.. 2006. ‘Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery: The Example of the Aiolian pottery Group G’. In Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt, edited by Villing, A. and Schlotzhauer, U., 105–8. London: The British Museum.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., and Sjöberg, B. L.. 2007. ‘The Importance of the Best Relative Fit Factor When Evaluating Elemental Concentration Data of Pottery Demonstrated with Mycenaean sherds from Sinda, Cyprus’. Archaeometry 49: 357–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mommsen, H., Kreuser, A., and Weber, J.. 1988. ‘A Method for Grouping Pottery by Chemical Composition’. Archaeometry 30: 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mommsen, H., Kreuser, A., Weber, J., and Podzuweit, C.. 1989. ‘Classification of Mycenaean Pottery from Kastanas by Neutron Activation Analysis’. In Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium held at the National Centre for physical sciences ‘Demokritos; in Athens from 19 to 23 May 1986, edited by Maniatis, Y., 515–23. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., Kreuser, A., Lewandowski, E., and Weber, J.. 1991. ‘Provenancing of Pottery: A Status Report on Neutron Activation Analysis and Classification’. In Neutron Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in Archaeology, Techniques and Applications, edited by Hughes, M., Cowell, M., and Hook, D., 57–65. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., Hertel, D., and Mountjoy, P. A.. 2001. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann Collection’. AA, 169–211.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., Kerschner, M., and Posamentir, R.. 2006. ‘Provenance Determination of 111 Pottery Samples from Berezan by Neutron Activation Analysis’. IstMitt 56: 157–68.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., Kerschner, M., Lang, M., and Weber-Lehmann, C.. 2008. ‘On the Export of East Greek Wild Goat Style Pottery to Sicily: Archaeometric Analyses of Pottery Found at Syracuse, Naxos, Gela, Selinus, and from the Kunstsammlungen of the Ruhr-University of Bochum’. In Vasi del Wild Goat Style dalla Sicilia e dai Musei Europei, edited by Lentini, M. C., 25–27. Syracuse: Lombardi Editori.Google Scholar
Mommsen, H., Bentz, M., and Boix, A.. 2016. ‘Provenance of Red-Figured Pottery of the Classical Period Excavated at Olympia’. Archaeometry 58: 371–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mommsen, H., Mountjoy, P., and Pavúk, P.. 2021. ‘Bademgedigi Tepe: Its Relations within the East Aegean–West Anatolian Interface, and Beyond (Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) of 190 sherds from Bademgediği (Puranda), Metropolis-Acropolis and Dedecik-Heybelitepe)’. Egypt and Levant 31: 357–90.Google Scholar
Mountjoy, P. A., and Mommsen, H.. 2015. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean-Style IIIC Pottery from 11 Cypriot and Various Near Eastern Sites’. Egypt and Levant 25: 421–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naso, A. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet. XIX. Anfore commerciali arcaiche a Mileto: rapporto preliminare’. AA, 73–84.Google Scholar
Perlman, I., and Asaro, F.. 1969. ‘Pottery analysis by neutron activation’. Archaeometry 11: 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popham, M., Hatcher, H., and Pollard, A. M.. 1980. ‘Al Mina and Euboea’. BSA 75: 151–61.Google Scholar
Popham, M., Pollard, A. M., and Hatcher, H.. 1983. ‘Euboean Exports to Al Mina, Cyprus, and Crete: A Reassessment’. BSA 78: 281–90.Google Scholar
Posamentir, R., Arslan, N., Bîrzescu, I., Karagöz, Ş, and Mommsen, H.. 2009. ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaisch-ostgriechischer Keramik: die Funde aus Histria, den Hellespont-Städten und verwandten Plätzen’. IstMitt 59: 35–50.Google Scholar
Riehle, K., Kistler, E., Heitz, C., Öhlinger, B., and Mommsen, H.. 2021. ‘Local Potter’ s Reactions: Three Case Studies from Southern Italy and Sicily’. JAS: Reports 39: 103182.Google Scholar
Sayre, E. V., Dodson, R. W., and Burr Thompson, D.. 1957. ‘Neutron Activation Study of Mediterranean Potsherds’. AJA 61: 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwedt, A., Aravantinos, V., Harami, A., et al. 2006. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Hellenistic Pottery from Boeotia, Greece’. JAS 33: 1065–74.Google Scholar
Vacek, A. 2012. ‘Greek and Related Pottery from Al Mina: A Case Study of Production, Consumption and Distribution of Greek pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 9th to the End of the 7th Century bc’. Ph.D. diss., Merton College, Oxford.Google Scholar
Vacek, A. 2014. ‘Euboean Imports at Al Mina in the Light of Recent Studies on the Pottery Finds from Woolley’s Excavation’. In Archaeometric Analyses of Euboean and Euboean Related Pottery: New Results and Their Interpretations. Proceedings of the Round Table Conference Held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens, 15 and 16 April 2011, edited by Kerschner, M. and Lemos, I. S., 141–56. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological Institute.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. L. 1978. ‘Elemental Analysis of Pottery in Study of Its Provenance: A Review’. JAS 5: 219–36.Google Scholar